Taxi Driver Online
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Roof Signs
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3101		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  cabbyman [ Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Roof Signs
A Licensed Hackney Carriage, which is not a purpose-built taxi, must display a roof sign at all times on the public highway, irrespective of whether it is working or not. Discuss. :-|
Author:  Sussex [ Tue Jan 17, 2006 9:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Roof Signs
cabbyman wrote:
A Licensed Hackney Carriage, which is not a purpose-built taxi, must display a roof sign at all times on the public highway, irrespective of whether it is working or not. Discuss. :-|

A taxi is always a taxi.

So if the taxi conditions/bylaws state that a roof light must be present, then it must be present 24/7 365 days a year. :shock:
Author:  delboy [ Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:27 am ]
Post subject: 
anyone know where i can get one of em white and black phc TAXI roof signs? checp :mrgreen: seen some on ebay but quite expensive
Author:  cabbyman [ Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Roof Signs
Sussex wrote:
cabbyman wrote:
A Licensed Hackney Carriage, which is not a purpose-built taxi, must display a roof sign at all times on the public highway, irrespective of whether it is working or not. Discuss. :-|

A taxi is always a taxi.

So if the taxi conditions/bylaws state that a roof light must be present, then it must be present 24/7 365 days a year. :shock:


Hi Sussex, Can you cite any legal authority for your statement? I would be interested in reading it in detail.
Author:  smiffyz (geoff) [ Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
Suppose it's the same as a wife driving the family car when it's a PHV, she MUST have a badge, unless it has a normal MOT and the plates are taken of when she's driving.
Author:  Stinky Pete [ Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
smiffyz (geoff) wrote:
Suppose it's the same as a wife driving the family car when it's a PHV, she MUST have a badge, unless it has a normal MOT and the plates are taken of when she's driving.


I think once its been plated either Hack of Ph, thats it, your wife can't drive it without a badge, I even think that even a mechanic can't take it for a test drive, but not quite sure on that one

a question

If I was to take off my top light and plate as I do to go places when not working, supermarket or leave in a car park or some dodgy estate, could I use the bus lanes and enter restricted areas, rising bollard, authorised vehicles only [ie taxi &bus only] without the top light and plate??????????
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Roof Signs
cabbyman wrote:
Hi Sussex, Can you cite any legal authority for your statement? I would be interested in reading it in detail.

I've borrowed this from the Licensing Officer's bible, and it gives the two main judgements.

SECTION 38 NOTES, Continued.

There are two cases of interest in which the decision was that a Hackney Carriage is:'used in standing or plying for hire', even though at that time it may be being used otherwise. These are Hawkins v Edwards, (1901), 2 KB 169, and Yates v Gates, (1970), 1 All ER 754. Both cases in effect mean that a licensed Hackney Carriage is licensed at all times and throughout the period of licence its status cannot vary. The effect of this is that even when being used privately by the driver it can be said still to be plying for hire, and may not be driven by anyone who does not hold a licence issued under Section 48 of the Act. The Hawkins case caused some confusion as it may have been that even when in a public car park a Hackney Carriage could be considered to be plying for hire but this has been clarified by more recent cases reported elsewhere on definition of ‘Street’ and ‘Road’. (See also Kingston upon Hull v Wilson).


In short the judges are saying that if a taxi wasn't always a taxi, then an unlicensed driver would always have a get out. Which is why section 38 of the 1847 act is worded the way it is.
Author:  smiffyz (geoff) [ Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
So how could that affect the "social domestic and pleasure" side of insurance? and if it does, a few quid might be saved by having PH/Hac only?
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
smiffyz (geoff) wrote:
So how could that affect the "social domestic and pleasure" side of insurance? and if it does, a few quid might be saved by having PH/Hac only?

It doesn't really effect it at all, just confirms that you are also insured when not working.

Providing you are licensed to drive the thing. :wink:
Author:  cabbyman [ Thu Jan 19, 2006 12:12 am ]
Post subject: 
So, considering insurance:

Most policies will include a condition along the lines of 'complies with LA licensing requirements.'

Is a vehicle lacking a roof sign in contravention of those requirements and, therefore, is the insurance voidable by the insurer?
Author:  TDO [ Thu Jan 19, 2006 12:39 am ]
Post subject: 
Good question.

Disregarding the law, I can think of good reasons to take a roof sign off, and I can't really see why unbadged people shouldn't be able to drive taxis while the taxi is not being used as such.
Author:  Sussex [ Thu Jan 19, 2006 8:41 am ]
Post subject: 
cabbyman wrote:
Is a vehicle lacking a roof sign in contravention of those requirements and, therefore, is the insurance voidable by the insurer?

I doubt a court would say the insurance is in-valid.

I suspect the licensing conditions also say the car must be clean etc, but a doubt a dirty car would be viewed as un-insured. :-k
Author:  TDO [ Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
The breach probably has to be 'material', ie not just something like wearing the wrong colour of tie, which seems to be a breach of the conditions in one of the Scottish authorities.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/